HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05 21 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes
~-
...
r'
r
r
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES
May 21, 1991
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
BQk~ CAI.J,.:
Bob Gray, Chainnan, Present
James Dasher, Present
Anne Schneider, Vice-Chainnan, Present
Lloyd Anderson, Present
Beverly Fickling, Absent
Lurene Lyzen, Present
Art Hoffmann, Present
CITY OFFIC~~S:
Frank Kruppenbacher, City Attorney
Code Officer Lt. Bob Pieper
Code Inspector Al Whi te
Approval of Minutes of March 1.~_L.19.3J,1________
Dasher mentioned a typo on page 2, 5th line from the bottom "emission"
should be "admission". Schneider also mentioned a typo on page 3, about the
middle of the page, where the word "emission" should be "admission".
Lyzen moved to approve the minutes as corrected.
Vote: All aye. Motion carried.
Seconded by Schneider.
Discussion qf Closed and Pend.ip~~!!J?: _______.______________
White gave the Board a copy of the cases from March and April. Hoffmann
asked about the status of the cases from the last hearing. White stated
that there . have been no more call>laints from any of the items from the last
hearing.
Gray stated that we are a little ahead of schedule, as the cases start at
7:15, but if all those who are going to testify for the next case are
present and ready we can go ahead. Lt. Pieper stated that Mr. Pitt - item
7, will ,not be present but is represented by his attorney, Bill Richman, and
advises that he is ready, and we can take the cases out of order if the
Board is willing. Gray stated that the Board will hear the cases out of
order.
Item #7 - Mr. V.A. Pitt -Section 6-46 (non permitted building, on utility
easement) :
Whi te passed out up-dated infornation on this case.
Mr. Bill Richman was sworn in for testimony.
City Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he spoke with the City Manager late
this afternoon and was told that Mr. Pitt's representative was going to
request to continue this matter and that he will be placed on the next
agenda for the Cannission regarding his request for a reconsideration of the
original decision. He stated that he was in contact with Mr. Pitt's
original attorney and advised him of the procedures to follow. This was a
request for a variance to vacate an easement and was turned down. There are
certain issues that the applicant believed demonstrated why the original
request may have been made in error. My advise to Mr. Pitt's original
attorney was to file a fornal request to the City Manager to identify what
the new facts were. That is the last I had heard of the issue until
.osre pa~sn uaaq aA-et.{ PInoqs
Z~Z-OZ uo~~~as ~~q~ u~ ~o~~a u1 pa~u~~d s~~ ~pua6~ aq~ ~~q~ pa~~~s ~ada~d
10 aA~~~~uasa~da~
. AUOWnsa~ ~01 u1 mo~s a~a~ 'suu~.a puepaqwno
, sa1A~a }[~~c pue UOA~.L p~A~a ' ~a~ 'UOA~.L S~~'1
.UO~~~Io~A
U1 II~~s a~~ '~a~~ pauoz AIl~~~~awwo~ ~ u~ a~uap1sa~ ~ s~ pasn 6u~aq aI~~aA
I~uo~~~a~~a~ aTH pue a~ua1 pa~~"J1lUadun aq~ ;]:0 s~a~~a.u aq,L .pa~~a~~o~
uaaq aA~q suo~~~Io~A ueId a~~s 9 aq~ A~po~ ;]:0 s~ ~-et.{~ pa~~~s a~~
. as~~ s~~ uo a~~p-dn ue -p~~og aq~ o~ ~no pass~d a~ ~
: (a~ua;]: pa~~"J1lUad UOU) 981-9 pue (ueId
a~~s 10 suo~~~Io~A 9) 6vf-6 suo~~~as - ~uawd~ ~~'1 at~puadaa - 9# wa~I
.pa~~~~~ uO~~OW .aA~ tIY :a~o^
AInr aq~ I~~un (S90-16-~ - ~aqwnu) as~~ s~~
.uaZA'1 Aq papuo~as .6u1~aaw
anunuo~ o~ paAow utreU.l;J;J:OH
.6unaaw
AInr aq~ o~ panu1~uo~ aq wa~1 s~~ ~~tn p.:t~og aq~ o~ papuawwo~a.:t a~~M
.w.d Of:L ~~ ~ap~o o~ }[~~ pa1t~~ ~~ 6u1~aaw aq,L
.w.d S1:L
~~ patI~~ ~~ ssa~a.:t att.L .as~~ s~~ ;]:0 sni~is aqi uo .:taD~UEW Ai~~ aqi qi1~
~ads PIno~ ~oi~adsuI apo~ pue ~a~1;J:10 apo~ aq~ i-et.{i os ssa~a~ ~ palI~~ A~.:tD
. ~0;J: DU1}[00t a~a~ iua1P s~ pue
aq i-et.{~ s1 i~qi i~qi }[~aI~ Ai1~ aqi PIoi aq ~~q~ pai~is aH .uo1s1~ap .:topd
aT.{i ~ap1suo~a~ oi s~auo1ss1UW=l~ aqi}[~ o~ 01 aunc ~o;]: ~ua6~ aq~ uo aq
oi paiue~ Aaqi ;n Ai 1~ aqi q~ 1~ aUH s~~ ~ 1 i-et.{i pai~~s pue uooma~~~ S~i
w~ pauoqd }[.:taI~ Ai~~ aq~ ~~qi pai~~S aH .u01ss1UW=l~ aq~ a~01aq 6up~aqa~
~ aA~q oi Ai1Ut1.~.:toddo aqi aA-et.{ Aaqi t1~un a~uenu1iuo~ ~ .:to~ DU1}[S~ ~ai~aI
~ puas Ualltpni ~~i pa~sa66ns aqs pue }[~at~ A~1~ aq~ paII~~ aq i-et.{~ pai~iS
tIallt{~ni . A~pS.:tnq,L ~~t sa~1~as s~ pau1~ia~ ii 1d ..:tW i-et.{i pa~~is tIallt{~nI
. ~a~ia.u s~~ uo uo1s~s1P se~ a~aq,L
.6u1~aaw Atnr aqi ~~ p~~og aT.{~ a~o;J:aq awo~ Plno~ i1
uaq~ ~sanba.:t aq~ sa1ttap u01ss1UW=l~ aqi ;J1 '6u1~~aq ~ ~o paau aq~ a~nw ~apua.:t
PIno~ i1 uaq~ iuauss~a aqi;Jo UOn~~~A aqi ~ue.:t6 oi sap1~ap u01ss1UW=l~
aqi n .u01ss"!ll1OO:) aqi wo.:t;J: u01s1~ap ~ DU"FPuad Dunaaw ixau aqi Hiun anss1
s~~ anunuo~ o~ s~ p~~oa aqi oi uon~puawwo~a~ AW . aw pa~~~~uo~ .:taD~UEW
aq~ pue .:taD~UEW Ai 1~ aqi pai~~iuO~ uewq~HI . ~w . ~aAO }[OOi uewq~1H ..:tW
~ a6~d
1661 '1Z A~
sa~nu1H p.:t~og iuaus~.:to;J:~ apo~
..... {l,
.~
~
~
r
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 3
There was discussion as to whether the Board would hear the case fram the
beginning as this case came before the Board in November 1990. This case
was heard before the Board of Adjustment in January. The BOA granted an
exception for the outside display area. The BOA did not grant an exception
for the residing in the recreational vehicle in a commercial area.
It was dete~ned that the violation for erecting a fence without a pe~t
was given on ~pril 19, 1991 and was given until April 20, 1991 to remedy the
situation and as of this date it has not been remedied.
Kruppenbacher stated that the violations as they stand now are erecting a
fence without a pe~t and residing in a recreational vehicle within a
commercially zoned area. Pieper stated that the City is seeking relief if
there are any future violations of the site plan (Section 9-349) in
accordance with Florida Statutes 162.
r'
Pieper stated that he would like to present this case going back to the
meeting of January 15, 1991 and pick up where it was I eft off. He stated
that the January 15 Code Enforcement meeting minutes, page 6, Code Officer
Taylor recapped the sequence of events. Mr. Tryon requested an extension
while the paper work was filed for a special exception and that he was not
prepared to proceed without legal advice from his attorney, who could not be
present for that particular meeting. In response to Dasher's inquiry Tryon
stated that he uses the RV for his business and admitted that he and his
wife were using it to live in while they keep an eye on the equipnent stored
on the property. In response to Gray's question, Tryon stated that he would
remove the RV from the property as soon as he gets the place to house the
equipnent in the rear of the store. Code Inspector Mary Muse advised Tryon
exactly what was needed in regard to the site plan; and those were: a
request for an outdoor display area, a request for the storage area behind
the store and a special exception to park the motor home on the property for
use in his business. As a resul t the CEB voted 5 to 1 to continue this case
to the next meeting. On January 21, 1991, Tryon make application to the
B.O.A. for a special exception variance for the purpose of a lawn equipment
and/or related equipnent outside the confines of the building for service
and/or repair. No mention was made in the application for the special
exception for an outdoor storage area or for the parking of the recreational
vehicle on the property for the use of the business.
r
Pieper stated that at the B.O.A. meeting's minutes of February 7, 1991, page
2, David Tryon, son of Lewis Tryon, spoke to the Board to request permission
to display lawn mowers outside the building during business hours adding
that through his contact with neighbors that there was no opposition to the
request. After discussion the B.O.A. voted unanimously to allow the request
within the limits as requested by Tryon which are: 7 feet to the front, 30
feet to the west side of the building and not on the sidewalk adjacent to
the bui 1 ding. On February 28, 1991, Whi te recei ved the minutes of the
B.O.A. meeting upon which contact was made with Tryon who was advised that
.....
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 4
~
the area established by the B.O.A. has been exceeded by 4 feet to the front
and 10 feet to the side. Tryon stated at that time he would move poles
which mark that area into canpliance. On March 7, 1991, White compared the
existing situation on the property within the limits established by the
B.O.A. The area still exceeded the limits by 4 feet in the front and 10
feet on the side and photos taken at that time shows equipment placed
farther outside the exceeded limits, approx. eighty feet fran the building.
The recreational vehicle was still on" the property and has been moved about
to different locations on the property and has electric and water hook ups
to the building. Equipment is being stored along the fence at the rear of
the property as well as the street side of the property and various items in
the middle of the property; in violation of the site plan and the limits
established by the B.O.A. March 19, 1991, White addressed the Code Board
advising them the case will be heard at the May meeting due to lack of time
to prepare the case for the March meetin~i On April 3, 1991, all violations
continued to exist upon reinspection ~ White. On April 18, 1991, White
issued a second statement of violation and notice of hearing to cumberland
Farms Inc., and Lewis Tryon for violations of 6-186, for the erection of a
fence without a permit; 20-232, for using a C-l zoned property for the
residence by using the motor hame and the six stated violations of the site
plan 9-349, which were exceeding the west boundary of the limited display...........
area and exceeding the north boundary of the limited area, displaying. 11
equipment in the middle of the property outside the approved display area,
unapproved storage area behind the building, storage and parking of
equipment along the fence separating the property fran the Hacienda Village
Mobile Harne Community and storage of trailers, trucks and equipment along
the curb line of state Road 434. On the 19th of April 1991, Tryon was hand
delivered a statement of violation and notice of hearing, and on the 26th of
April 1991, upon reinspection at 2:20 p.m. the recreational vehicle is in
the parking area with the electric and water hook up to the building;
equipment is seen allover the lot in distances as much as one hundred and
fifty (150) feet fran the building. On the 29th of April 1991, three
inspections at 7:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., the recreational vehicle
has moved into the established display area adjacent to the building and the
equipment is spread out on the property outside the display area and the
equipment is not seen at the back line of the fence or fronting along the
roadway but is scattered on different locations of the property and the
fence behind the store still exists. On the 21st of May, on this day, a
photo was taken upon reinspection by White revealing the recreational
vehicle still is present and Tryon advised White that he continues to live
in the recreational vehicle. The site plan for the violations appear to be
corrected with respect to the storage and display outside the confines of
the building as established by the B.O.A. The fence remains at the rear of
the business and has not yet had a permit issued by the City for its
construction. Based upon these facts and observations it is the City's
position that Dependable Lawn Equipment/Lewis Tryon, has been in violation
of Sections 9-349, for the stated violations of the site plan, even though~
these violations of the site plan have been correc1:ed at this time, they had J
not been corrected wi thin the time 1 imi t set by the Code Inspector as per
r
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 5
Florida statute 162 and therefore appear before this Board tonight.
Furthermore, the Dependable Lawn Equipment is in violation of Section 6-186
by erecting a fence on the property valued in excess of $100.00 for the
purpose of enclosing a storage area without first obtaining a permit fram
the Building Official and for the continued violation of Section 20-232, by
using a C-1 neighborhood commercial district zoned parcel as a residence by
occupying a recreational vehicle parked on the land of the parcel.
Therefore, we seek a determination by the Board that Dependable Lawn
Equipment and Lewis Tryon has been in violation of the stated Sections and a
relief order issued addressing these violations and any future violations of
the corrected sections.
r
David Tryon, son of Lewis Tryon and worker for Dependable Lawn Equipment
spoke on behal f of his father and Dependabl e Lawn Equi~nt, 814 Ashby Way,
Osteen, FL. He stated that the fence was pieced together by several pieces
of chain link fence donated to them and the value of the fence is less than
$100.00. He stated, correct him if he is wrong, but for a fence less than
$100.00 a permit is not needed. D. Tryon stated that they have a lot of
people coming in and out of the shop with equipment, they go to homes and
pick up I awn mowers, the side of his father t s pick-up truck has Dependabl e
Lawn Equipment written on it with magnetic signs, the trailer that is used
to pick up peoples equipment has Dependable Equipment on it, we park that in
different parts of the parking lot which was one of the violations we were
sighted for. The third issue would be when we went before the B.O.A. to get
permission to put out equipment outside, they gave us certain areas to put
it, but before we went in front of the B.O.A. we had just laid grass, and we
put poles around the grassy area to keep people fram driving on the grass.
At the time of the B.O.A. meeting we did not know how far out it was from
the building. The Board was more than willing to give us a hundred feet if
we wanted it, or twenty feet if we wanted it, we just carne up with a round
number of 30 feet. When we returned to the shop, we realized it was 40
feet, and a couple feet more in the front. Sometimes we take the equipment
and cover the whole area and sometimes we do not take any equipment out at
all, it varies day to day.
D. Tryon admitted that sometimes the equipment is 40 feet fram the building.
D. Tryon stated that the equipment they have stored along the fence that
borders Hacienda Village, is a couple trailers and a few pieces of lawn
equipment, and since that day they only have one more trailer out there and
everything else has been gone. He stated that the motor home is used for
his parents to live in for the reason that there is over 20 thousand dollars
of equipment sitting outside. There is a camera monitor on the back with a
TV on the inside where my father can watch outside to see what is going on.
r
""
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 6
.~
Gray made the s~atement to D. Tryon that they are willing to be in violation
of City Code to protect the property. D. Tryon sta~ed that in the aspect of
tne motor nome being there yes. Gray asked if they are aware of the Codes
that they are accused of violating and if they feel a need to came to the
City ~o work with them to get these violations cleared up. D. Tryon stated
that as a City employee yes, he stated that he has tried to work with the
City as best as they can and it appears not to be working out. Gray asked
now was the value of the fence detenmined. D. Tryon stated how do you
detenmine ~he value of something that was donated, he stated that frc:m the
pictures you can see there is about 3-4 sections of chain link fence that
are tied together.
D. Tryon stated tha~ the fence is used in the back of the building where you
can't even see the fence unless you go in the back to look at i~. It is
usea ~o keep various used lawn mower parts.
Kruppenbacher asked D. Tryon if he acknowledges receiving the notices of
violations. D. Tryon stated yes. Kruppenbacher stated that the notice was
received on the 19th of April. D. Tryon stated yes. Kruppenbacher asked
that in the month since you received this have you provided any written
s~atement to the City regarding your conduct in this matter. D. Tryon
stated no. Kruppenbacher asked if they have verbally spoken with anyone
frc:m the City since the citation was received to explain your position. D.
Tryon stated yes he has, he talked to Mr. Rozansky yesterday, May 20, 1991.
Kruppenbacher asked other than yesterday had he spoken with anyone. D.
Tryon stated that he spoke with a couple of police officers.
.~
Lewis Tryon stated that his plans when he moved into that location were
honorable and stated that he feels that he is being harassed. He stated
that he feels that he has let things go too long and should have acted
sooner. He stated that his first intentions when he moved his business
there was to build a building on the property to house his excess equipment.
He stated that the plans for that have changed because business is down and
with all the problems he is having with the City, he does not want to invest
in putting a building on that property for fear of more problems.
Gray stated that if the proper procedures are followed there would be no
problems.
Kruppenbacher stated that the fence problem can easily be remedied by cc:ming
to the City and finding out if a penmit is needed to erect the fence. L.
Tryon stated that he called the City and asked if a penmit was needed and
was told that if it is less then $100.00 there is no need for a penmit.
Pieper showed the Board a photo of the fence. Kruppenbacher asked Pieper in
his opinion the value of the fence to replace it, would it be in excess of
$100.00. White stated that he spoke with the Building Official and they
estimated the fence based on its purchased priced at approx. $300.00-$360.00 .~
i nsta 11 ed .
I"""'
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 7
White stated that the price was based on the Building Official's
interpretation of the formula to detenmine the value.
Dasher asked what would the price be if labor was not included.
stated that it would be about $180.00.
White
Gray stated to the Tryons that even though the material was given to them
the value still exceeds the $100.00 limit. D. Tryon stated that they did
not realize that fact, if they would have know that a penmit was needed by
what the value of the fence was they would have gotten a penmit. He also
stated that if the Board/City wants them to get a penmit, they would get a
penmit for the fence.
Kruppenbacher stated that he recognizes him for saying that but what is
their logic for ignoring the other citations as it relates to parking the
motor home and using the display in excess of thirty feet.
r
Gray stated that it is clear that they, the Tryons, have stated that they
are there for security reasons and the City Code does not deal with that.
and we can not say that that is oenmissable. Kruooenbacher stated that it
is not permissable.
L. Tryon explained that the motor home is there for security reasons.
Hoffmann stated that the motor home is still in violation regardless of the
need for security.
Gray stated that the problem is coming up with an alternative solution, and
a suggestion could be to possibly hire someone to guard the prooerty at
night and therefore, there would be no violation. He stated that there are
solutions to this problem and can't understand why the oroblems are not
resolved by now.
L. Tryon stated that for the past month he has been trying to solve the
problems, and stated that at-the end of the month they hope to be gone from
the location entirely. He also stated that they are very sorry to have
caused the City all these problems, but is planning to relocate his business
outside the City.
Dasher asked if the Tryon's were planning to move the business at the end of
the month. L. Tryon stated that yes he was.
r
Schneider stated that a statement of violation was received on Aoril 18,
1991, and within that time and yesterday when Tryon spoke with the Code
Inspector, asked why they did not let the City know they were looking to
relocate the business by the end of the month.
L. Tryon stated that he feels that he has been harassed and just would like
to leave the City.
-.
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21 J 1991
Page 8
~
Pieper asked Tryon that when this issue came before this Board in January
and he was advised to go before the B.O.A. for the three specific things,
did he ask the B.O.A. for an exception to have the motor hame on the
property, and was it on the application to the B.O.A. L. Tryon stated that
it probably was not but it was discussed.
Pieper stated that he recalls fram the January meeting that Tryon was told
he needed a special exception to have the motor hame on the property until
he had a place to store his equipment.
Pieper also asked if Tryon asked for an exception for the storage area
behind the building. Tryon stated that the fence has been up for at least a
year. He stated that they put the fence up as a courtesy to the residents
of Hacienda Village so they would not have to look at the equipment in the
rear of the building.
There was ques~'on on the type of fence. It was detenmined that there are
about 8-9 sections of wood fence and about 3 sections of chain link fence.
Gray asked what fence is in violation.
fence.
White stated that it is the wood
~
Pieper stated that the issue of the fence was brought up back in November
1990. L. Tryon and D. Tryon stated that the fence was put up when they
first moved to the building and the issue was not brought up before this
Board in November.
D. Tryon stated that they are very sorry that this had to came about and
that they will be moving the business out of the City at the end of the
month. He stated that he would like the Board to give them an exception
long enough to get out which would be about 1-1 1/2 months to move all the
equipment. If the Board wants them to get a penmit for the fence or take
the fence down what ever the Board wants. I will make sure the equipment is
at 29 feet in the outside display area. We will do anything the Board wants
us to do until we move.
Gray stated that the only thing the Board wants is for them to came into
carp 1 iance with City Code, we are not asking you to do anything beyond that.
Pieper asked if the Tryon's asked the B.O.A. for the limit on the grassy
area. D. Tryon stated that they had the grassy area in place before they
went before the B.O.A. and the posts they placed will not be moved because
when the restaurant next door gets busy; the patrons park on our grassy
area.
Hoffmann asked the representative of Cumberland
were granted to the Tryon's with their lease.
Farms what property rights""""
r
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 9
Jack Davies, representative of Cumberland Farms real estate division known
as USH reality, stated that the original lease was signed by L. Tryon's
partner Rich Gedart and is still the tenant of record. The outside area is
a common area lease.
Kruppenbacher asked what is the position of the reality company on the
violations by the tenants. Davies stated that the lease expires May 31,
1991, and Tryon plans to vacate the property at the end of the month, and
the company placed the tenant on notice as of February 15, 1991, that they
would not be renewing the lease which had nothing to do with this issue.
Kruppenbacher asked Davies if after May 31, 1991, the business operated by
the Tryons will no longer be permitted to occupy that property. Davies
stated under the terms of the lease that is correct, if they continue to
occupy they will be occupying as a tenant in sufferance.
('
Pieper stated that based on what was presented before this Board, the
violation of using the recreational vehicle on commercial property exists
and has existed since November 1990, the storage aspects of the site plan
have been corrected as of this date, we don't anticipate future problems but
we have to be prepared for them, and the matter of the fence being erected
in excess of $100.00, obviously it is the Board's duty to allow a reasonable
time to come into compliance which would be at the Board's discretion taking
into the fact that there is nine days left on the lease. We as the City
believe that these violations do exist and seek a relief order upon a
comp 1 i ance date.
There was discussion on a motion.
Kruppenbacher stated the motion could read as follows: Based upon the
evidence there has been and continues to be a violation of Sections 20-232
as it relates to the violation of C-1 zoning in using the motor home for a
residence and 6-186 the erection of a fence without a permit.
Dasher moved that Dependable Lawn Equipment/Lewis Tryon is
violation as stated by the Attorney of the City of Winter Springs.
by Lyzen. Vote: All aye. Motion carried.
found in
Seconded
Dasher moved that Dependable Lawn Equipment/Lewis Tryon be allowed until
June 1, 1991 to correct their violations as determined. tonight and any
additional violations occurring after that date shall have a fine of $200.00
per day until corrected as determined in the opinion of an officer of the
City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Lyzen. There was discussion on the
relief order. Vote: All aye. Motion carried.
r
.-
Code Enforcement Board Minutes
May 21, 1991
Page 10
~
Lyzen moved that Dependable Lawn Equipment/Lewis Tryon have been in
violation of Section 9-349 as it relates to the site plan requirements of
seven feet inthe front and thirty feet to the side, compliance has now
taken place and there is no violation as of this evening. Seconded by
Hoffmann. Vote: All aye. Mot ion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margo Hopk i ns
Deputy City Clerk
~
~